To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.

You know, I admire the concept of slimmed down monarchy, but I think denying relatives an HRH/title is going to just incur resentment and I do believe that the Yorkies, if trained and educated properly, would in fact be valuable assets and it would be foolish to strip them of their HRH. It's not practical and frankly I think Charles wasn't thinking long term (something royals are supposed to do) when he said stuff about slimming the BRF.

Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.

Exactly.Chuck and Campon aren't getting any younger so that leaves only the Lazy Duo and Harry to carry out all those duties and patronages.HM has plenty of family members to help her like the Kents and the Gloucesters and Chuck should do the same.

I don't think Charles took into consideration that his sons and their wives won't be able to carry the burden of possibly taking on HM/Philip's patronage, the Prince's Trust, along with their own agendas and general appearances. Second, it sounds like Charles will strip the Yorkies not only of their titles, but their trust funds and even living in the palaces. I think Charles is also nuts to think that stopping support to his relatives is a good idea, since they're too old to work and as products of their time and class, a career wouldn't work out for them at all. If he strips his brother, okay, but not the princesses who didn't do anything wrong. The Yorkies should be punished less and given a chance. This ideal of a slimmed down monarchy is not going to realistically hold up.

Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.

^Off course it isn't.Chuck will be okay during his short reign with 2 brothers and a sister helping him.But Wimpo or Harry will not be okay like HM was not okay.She had only one sister who was not into Royal Duties that much.Thankfully she could rely on other family members to help her.Chuck has to wake up and start to create a support system for Wimpo or Harry when their time has come.

Stripping the HRH from people who were provided it by a monarch is just wrong. It gives the impression that the RF members are all temporary and that the RF doesn't have any value It wouldn't be good for him to play like that. The next to go is Harry since William will likely do the same. If that is the new rule, than no 2nd born should be an HRH. Take it away from Charlotte immediately.

Charles cannot strip them of their HRH's or their trust funds or their rights to the Lodge at Windsor. These have all been granted to them by other legal means and hence he has no ability to do this. Perhaps Parliament might decide they cannot have Royal Lodge but not Charles.

I think that by the time Willie is King the York ladies will be in their 40's, married and quite settled. Maybe then there will be a reconsideration of their roles. Right now though the ladies have hurt themselves with Bea and her perpetual vacations.

Charles can strip the York's, Gloucester's, and Kent's of their HRHs by issuing new LPs about who is to have the HRH e.g. only the children of the heir apparent - so William's children but not Harry's. He could say all grandchildren of the monarch but when no longer the grandchildren of the monarch they lose it - so Harry's children would only have the HRHs while Charles is King but not when they become the nieces or nephews of the monarch. George V stripped a number of people of their HRH Prince/Princess status in 1917 when he issued the current LPs e.g. young Prince Louis of Battenburg became Lord Louis Mountbatten.

It should also be noted that the entire 'smaller royal family' line started with a throw away line in 1992 by a staffer as a comment heard during a 'Way Ahead Group' meeting and has never been actually restated by anyone since then but has taken on a life of its own. The Way Ahead Group no longer meets (it was the senior royals - Philip, Charles, Andrew, Anne and William - once he turned 18 or so). Someone on another forum message a number of the press who messaged back that idea isn't what they are hearing directly from within the Royal Household itself - that Charles' intention is natural attrition and he isn't going to be cutting off his support for his siblings or expecting them to stop doing what they have been doing for decades. He isn't going to stop the Gloucester's either or the Kent's if still with us but he doesn't want the York girls - and in time he doesn't want Harry's children to be forced into this life.

What, I believe, the intention is, is that in time the only working royals will be the monarch and spouse, the adult children of the monarch and maybe their spouses (not necessarily the spouses of younger children) but not the cousins etc as is the case today. The intention is a natural attrition to drop the numbers from around 20 to about 6 but over time and not all of a sudden e.g. when the Duke of Kent leaves us some of his patronages etc will be picked up by others but many will be left without a royal patron and so on.

The Way Ahead Group was an asinine idea; none of the senior royals have any clue about how to move forward. Striping his family of their ancestral birthright is going to do NOTHING but end up causing horrendous bitterness and setting a BAD BAD BAD precedent. If it starts with relatives of the RF, what is to say that William and his rotten in-laws won't use it against nobles who step out of line (like refusing to marry Pippa/James) and it sets up using the Letters Patent as a weapon.

I think that by the time Willie is King the York ladies will be in their 40's, married and quite settled. Maybe then there will be a reconsideration of their roles. Right now though the ladies have hurt themselves with Bea and her perpetual vacations.

I think Bea has done some damage to herself, she lacked a centered balance in her life. Yet, she's still a princess by birthright.

Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.

One thing wrong with this article - and there are many - is 'Prince Charles and the Queen are said to *despise* to hear her name spoken' referring to Sarah but ... The Queen invites Sarah to Balmoral each year and is known to spend time with her and the rest of the York's privately. It is clear therefore that this comment is made up.

As for Kate going ahead of the Princesses - of course she would. She was with William and William is the second in the line of succession. They were simply following protocol.

A reason why they rushed the Cambridge's around was that so many people wanted to see them. They are the stars of the show at the moment - despite what people here want to believe the polls clearly show William, Kate and Harry as the most popular royals - ahead of The Queen with a rating in the high 70s - to low 80s.

Pity Charles doesn't think to use the Yorkies as a stand-in for his parents; while the charities patronized by HM and Philip will lose a little relevance and press while Charles and William reign, it would be good for the charities and still have involved royals. If I were HM or Charles, I would tell the Yorkies they could become working royals if they agree to work in the offices of the Prince's Trust or the charities and limit their appearances to the events related to the charities.

Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.

if we look at what is going on in the European royal world - the Danes are now requiring that the royal family finance themselves, the Spanish monarchy has had their grant severely reduced. These kinds of developments just show that monarchy has to change to suit the times - obvious stuff. So a reduction in the size of the RF makes sense - especially if it occurs as per a normal passage of time. If you are a child of the monarch I think sure you should be working for the monarchy - but a grandchild of the monarch need not. So Harry should work for his father but his children need not work for their Uncle Will. And so Andrew should work for his Mom but his daughters need not work for their Uncle Charles.

I forgot about what George V did re: reducing the number of HRH's - thanks Mememee for reminding me - my whoops!But it does show us that previous monarchs have reduced the size of the RF.

A rather chilly relationship: It's a picture that spoke volumes about the frostiness between Kate and Fergie's girls. Here we reveal what lies behind it

women would want to find themselves in: being photographed anywhere near the naturally elegant, uber-slender Duchess of Cambridge.Spare a thought, then, for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. This week at a Buckingham Palace garden party, the sisters were pictured trailing in the wake of Kate, who was a vision in a fitted cream Alexander McQueen coat.The three women weren’t walking together, gossiping companionably, as you might imagine, say, Zara Phillips, Beatrice and Eugenie might have done. More than that, the Princesses were giving the Duchess what would appear to be some rather chilly looks.

For who could outshine the flawless Kate? After all, even the world’s most glamorous women — from A-list actress Nicole Kidman to First Lady Michelle Obama — have been left looking a little dull in the Duchess’s radiant presence.Poor Beatrice and Eugenie, despite being dressed up to the nines in a £1,700 Burberry dress and a £300 Alice + Olivia printed skirt respectively, simply couldn’t compete. As a result, the atmosphere between the three young royal women looked decidedly cool. Some say that this froideur, on what was supposed to be an idyllic occasion, a celebration of the Queen’s 90th birthday, is not new.Tensions are said to have begun to surface in the early years of Kate’s relationship with William — and are rooted in far more than mere sartorial competitiveness.

if we look at what is going on in the European royal world - the Danes are now requiring that the royal family finance themselves, the Spanish monarchy has had their grant severely reduced. These kinds of developments just show that monarchy has to change to suit the times - obvious stuff. So a reduction in the size of the RF makes sense - especially if it occurs as per a normal passage of time. If you are a child of the monarch I think sure you should be working for the monarchy - but a grandchild of the monarch need not. So Harry should work for his father but his children need not work for their Uncle Will. And so Andrew should work for his Mom but his daughters need not work for their Uncle Charles.

I forgot about what George V did re: reducing the number of HRH's - thanks Mememee for reminding me - my whoops!But it does show us that previous monarchs have reduced the size of the RF.

First, I have no issues with the HRH nimbus being held by relations. It's who they are and frankly, they shouldn't be stripped of an ancestral title just because it's good PR. Stripping family members of their titles will just create more enemies for the direct line and against the Sovereign who does this. There's no harm in letting someone keep the HRH and frankly I think the Yorkies should keep their HRH and live their own lives.

Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.

It would mean that no one other than the first born of monarch and the heir would receive the HRH or aNY titles (there goes harry's title since he is a second born prince and the hrh that charlotte has been given). Should charles become king, he is indicating that harry's children are not to be given hrhs since they will be the grandchildren of the second child of the monarch. and right now since charlotte is second born, hers should be taken away as well. we'll see if he's still game for that in the future!

Imagine being told one day that your ancestral nimbus is being taken away because of the need for good PR. Someone in that family holding an HRH is not a major problem and frankly no one with the title is doing much (if any) harm compared to Kate and William and yes, Harry. The Yorkies don't owe the BRF jack since they are being cut out of appearances and are basically being used as scapegoats for WK's failures as prince and consort.

Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.

I think we need to remember the difference between a title and a styling - HRH and Prince/Princess are not titles - they are stylings.The letters patent are legal documents that create a peerage such as Duke of this or Earl of that etc. Harry Bea and Eugenie are HRH's and Prince/Princesses but they are not peers - no peerage has been given to them yet.

George V as Mememee reminded us took away the stylings of several family members by eliminating their HRH's and Princey stylings but the world did not end.

There is it seems to me a point at which you are so far removed from the monarch generation wise that continuing to be called HRH or Prince/Princess gets absurd. After a few generations you'd have princes/princesses sprouting like weeds all over the place - there would be so many of them it would be meaningless. So it makes sense that neither Harry nor Bea/Eugenie's kids should be HRH's or princelings.

I misspoke on the Danes - the new rule proposed is that the state will support the monarch and the heir - but not assorted others so Joachim and Marie plus their kids will have to get a job!

Clearly neither the Kents or Gloucester grandkids expect to live off the royal largesse - we see them at big events but otherwise they have their own lives. Yet they are descended from George V. So a natural attrition makes the most sense - no one gets upset and the RF pleases the public and Parliament. No more complaints about the poor taxpayer supporting this huge family.

So the question then is - what happens to the Gloucester and Kent big apartments at KP when that natural attrition occurs?

When the Gloucester's and Kent's no longer are using their apartments (only the current HRHs have them) then they will be turned over to charities, younger royals such as Harry and maybe even Charlotte assuming she is an adult at the time. Marlborough House, for instance, was the home of successive Princes of Wales - Edward VII and George V and then when George V become King, Queen Alexandra returned to MH followed in time by Queen Mary but when Queen Mary died there was no one senior enough to use it so the Queen turned it over to the Commonwealth to be the Commonwealth HQs in London.

CH is now seen as the London home of the heir apparent but for how long? Will William move in there when he is the heir apparent or remain in 1A at KP? Where will Philip go if he outlives the Queen? What provision will be made for Camilla if she outlives Charles?

With the rumoured smaller royal family coming then there will be more space for charities, government offices etc in the big palaces as well as opening more of them to the public.